Florida Boaters Unite: defeat HB 955 and SB 1126

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by bella

oh please don't give the legislature any ideas.. we are a use state. If they can put a fee on it they will in Tallahassee.. lots of fees changed in oct 2009 and they all jumped sky high. Next thing ya know they will charge me for farting.. I swear.. hush.. shhhhhhhhhhhh no really..

But here's my point: YOU pay registration fees. I get the benifit. Seems only fair that if I'm gonna live in your state a month at a time on my boat, I ought to pay up some. I guess I do buying stuff and paying sales tax, but I can't imagine anyone having an issue with a $25 anchoring license. And I'm a cheap mofo, don't you doubt that.

[AnchorageGuy]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

But here's my point: YOU pay registration fees. I get the benifit. Seems only fair that if I'm gonna live in your state a month at a time on my boat, I ought to pay up some. I guess I do buying stuff and paying sales tax, but I can't imagine anyone having an issue with a $25 anchoring license. And I'm a cheap mofo, don't you doubt that.

Where will you pay these fees? Who will enforce them? How will someone know you have paid? Will you pay this fee on top of Florida's required registration of all boats in the state over 90 days? If you drive your car into Florida, will you pay the state a fee to park anywhere in the state? If your from out of state and bring your bike on the boat with you, will you pay a fee to ride your out of state bike on Florida roads and bike paths? Chuck

[a64pilot]

If I thought it would put this anchorage thing to bed and allow us to go back to navigable waters being under the control of the Federal government, then yes I would pay as a Fl registered boat a significant fee that went toward dealing with derelict boats.
I would add this fee to the registration fee, so that in order to register, you pay this fee too, then anyone who is in Fl for more than 90 days that follows the rules would pay into this fee too.

All I would ask for would be for it to be put into a fund specific for this task, I would not want it to go into the general funds.

I see this eventually being to where all you can do is travel from one crowded mooring field to another crowded mooring field with anchorages in built up areas being fewer and further between

[BandB]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I see this eventually being to where all you can do is travel from one crowded mooring field to another crowded mooring field with anchorages in built up areas being fewer and further between

I can potentially see some more of the anchorages converted to mooring fields with no net change of places to anchor or moor.

While we do see some people who would eliminate all anchorages, perhaps all boats, if they could, and while we do need to make our views known, let's also keep in mind that what has actually occurred to this point and is likely to in the future is far less than those things we fear. I think having a pilot program was extremely smart. This was midway between do nothing and change the entire state. It was and is a test. As long as the actual laws move slowly and responsibly we'll all be better for it.

I'm glad the state has stepped in rather than leave each community free reign to do anything they wish. So far cooler heads have prevailed and I hope that continues. Yes, the effort being led by cruisers and the effort of those in the industry is important. I ran across a lady a few days ago who disliked all anchoring and strongly. Then I find out she lives 7 miles from any water. Similarly I've heard from boaters who seemed almost in a panic mode and found out they've never been to Florida and live halfway across the world.

Back to the issues, I think derelict boats must be addressed. I don't see any real argument on that, just how is the question. Some rules may need clarity. For instance there are currently rules saying you must not block marina entrances or ramps or people's access to their own docks. But right now the interpretation is subject to the individual FWC officer. And mostly I see the need for a continuation of rules preventing individual communities enacting laws and regulations. They have to be done within some framework.

I'd be interested in more comments in the Pilot Program thread from those who have actually used it, observed it, or live in the community.

[AnchorageGuy]

We've been cruising in Florida waters for over 23 years. The mooring fields DO NOT help the derelict boat problem in any way. In every case where a mooring field has been installed, the derelict boats just move to another anchorage. The only one affected are the true cruising community that would like to choose to either anchor or pay for dockage, etc along their favorite waterway stops. Using the derelict boat issue as an excuse to regulate anchoring is simply that, an excuse. There are more than sufficient laws on the state and federal books to handle this and eliminate the problem altogether. This is another case of the path of least resistance. It's takes work and effort to use the existing laws to solve the problem. I see more FWC officer driving up and down the highway in their SUV's than I every see on the water on any given day. Communities will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a mooring field and the administration of it, based on the pressures of a few, rather than using those same resources to resolve the problems they claim the mooring field will correct. Herein lies the problem and here is where we need to address our response to these ongoing proposals to regulate. Chuck

[soverel]

The mooring fields are not making money in this area and subsidized by town taxpayer funds. Among their budget items for the mooring field is about fifty grand a year to county sheriff to monitor the mf on weekends to make sure everyone is paying for the ball. Unreal.

Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[dannc]

Passage Maker magazine sent me an email today which had a link to this issue. Hearings Set To Discuss Re-regulating Anchoring on Florida’s Waterways | | PassageMaker

Local governments could be granted authority to regulate the anchoring of vessels in limited, prescribed situations. Please consider each of the following provisions:
• The owner, operator or person in charge of a vessel may not anchor a vessel within 150 feet of mooring fields, boat ramps, marinas and other launching or landing facilities that are open for use by the general public.
• A vessel may not be anchored overnight within 300 feet of waterfront residential property or in a location that restricts use of attached docks or boat lifts.
For this provision, the following definitions would apply:
“Overnight” means more than 4 consecutive hours during the period from one half hour past sunset to one half hour before sunrise.
“Waterfront residential property” means any upland property bounded on at least one side by waters of the state, above the water’s edge at the shoreline or seawall, upon which a single-family home, multi-family apartment, townhouse, condominium or other similar residential dwelling exists. This term excludes docks and other infrastructure attached thereto.
• A vessel may not be stored on waters of the state if any of the following conditions exist: o it is incapable of navigating under its own power
• takes on water without the ability to dewater
• spaces designed to be enclosed are open to the elements
• leaking contaminants
• has broken loose or is in danger of doing so
• violates sanitation laws
• listing or aground
For this provision, the following definition would apply:
“Stored” means not under the direct supervision and control of a person capable of operating the vessel and promptly moving it from a location.
If a local government has a need to regulate anchoring in any way other than those described above, the local government would be required to apply for Commission approval and provide:
• A copy of the proposed ordinance
• Maps illustrating the areas proposed to be regulated
• Substantial competent evidence demonstrating specific local problems that the regulation intends to resolve
• Substantial competent evidence of how the regulation addresses specific navigation hazards, the accumulation of anchored vessels in inappropriate locations and/or the health, safety and welfare of the public while minimizing impacts to access to state waters, fishing and other water-related recreational activities


“Safe Harbor” means taking refuge by temporarily anchoring due to a mechanical breakdown or when imminent or existing extreme weather conditions impose an unreasonable risk of harm, in which case a vessel may remain anchored until repaired, which shall occur within 7 days, or in the event of extreme weather, until weather conditions improve to the point it is no longer perilous to operate the vessel.

For the most part this seems fair BUT, the text I highlighted concerns me.

The 150 feet rule seems reasonable near a boat ramp but near moorings or marina? Not sure I would want to be that close because of traffic but that one bothers me.

300 feet is absurd. It would keep people from anchoring in canals and rivers. 100 yards is just to far to protect someone's view. If a boat is noisy there are laws that can be used. I never measured the distance from our anchored boats position to shore but I would bet in some cases we within 100 yards.

The definition of stored means someone will have to be on the boat 24x365 when at anchor.

Maybe the article has not copied the proposed regulation correctly. Order can matter, but if what is on the link is correct, there be problems.

Later,
Dan

[BandB]

Originally Posted by AnchorageGuy

We've been cruising in Florida waters for over 23 years. The mooring fields DO NOT help the derelict boat problem in any way. In every case where a mooring field has been installed, the derelict boats just move to another anchorage. The only one affected are the true cruising community that would like to choose to either anchor or pay for dockage, etc along their favorite waterway stops. Using the derelict boat issue as an excuse to regulate anchoring is simply that, an excuse. There are more than sufficient laws on the state and federal books to handle this and eliminate the problem altogether. This is another case of the path of least resistance. It's takes work and effort to use the existing laws to solve the problem. I see more FWC officer driving up and down the highway in their SUV's than I every see on the water on any given day. Communities will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a mooring field and the administration of it, based on the pressures of a few, rather than using those same resources to resolve the problems they claim the mooring field will correct. Herein lies the problem and here is where we need to address our response to these ongoing proposals to regulate. Chuck

I wouldn't expect the mooring fields to help the derelict boat situation, just reduce them in that one area. However, your comment about the choice to anchor or get dockage is one I suggest that mooring is an additional option. So why not a choice between anchoring, mooring and dockage. Obviously all three can't be side by side in most areas. Personally if I was in a boat that fit in a mooring field, I would like that as a third option. Sometimes I'd rather have a quiet secluded anchorage, but sometimes I'd like the option of a good mooring field with minimal costs and services. Actually many cruisers have to go to a marina for those services and might be able to use a mooring field instead in some locations. I really don't see the harm in a test program of five mooring fields in a state this size.

As to communities spending on them, that would appear to be a choice for the taxpayers of that community. I will say communities already spend a lot of money on parks and recreation. Parks don't bring in any revenue and cost a lot to keep. The best example I think of is Central Park. NYC could parcel and sell it and solve their financial problems for years. But instead they provide an incredible park on the most expensive real estate in the country.

I personally think there are two separate and distinct issues that both sides seem to combine and then complicate. Issue one is derelict boats. Issue two is anchorages, moorings, and marinas. How many, where, any restrictions. Building more. But I do agree with you that switching an anchorage to a mooring field does nothing toward solving the overall derelict boat issue.

Which of the Florida mooring fields have you personally moored in and what was your experience when doing so?

[AnchorageGuy]

BandB, The etc part,"either anchor or pay for dockage, etc" refers to moorings or whatever. We have used every mooring field in the current pilot program except Sarasota. In every case we used the mooring because we had to for one reason or another and would have preferred to anchor instead. The only advantage we saw in any of them was the ability to use a dinghy dock because another was not available. In almost all pilot mooring fields, the shore access has been eliminated unless you use a mooring. We now pretty much avoid those stops altogether and that is a shame because some of them we like a lot. Chuck

[BandB]

Originally Posted by AnchorageGuy

BandB, The etc part,"either anchor or pay for dockage, etc" refers to moorings or whatever. We have used every mooring field in the current pilot program except Sarasota. In every case we used the mooring because we had to for one reason or another and would have preferred to anchor instead. The only advantage we saw in any of them was the ability to use a dinghy dock because another was not available. In almost all pilot mooring fields, the shore access has been eliminated unless you use a mooring. We now pretty much avoid those stops altogether and that is a shame because some of them we like a lot. Chuck

Clearly there hasn't been anything to lead to expanding the program so far. It's a trial. I have talked to people who loved the St. Augustine mooring fields.

As to the document you copied and pasted here, I do agree with you on the 300 ft. I've previously posted what you'd find within 300' of our home and we love it. 300' anchoring when we have canals less than 100' wide is crazy. If I was picking a number, and I know many oppose any number, I'd choose 25' from properties with homes and 35' from docks. The 35' is simply based on allowing a boat with a 28' beam to get to it's dock. The 25', I'm just looking at like a property set back. Recognize in most places the home has to be set back too. So some set back for privacy makes sense. Honestly, I've never seen people anchoring closer anyway because those who anchor want their privacy. But again 300' is crazy, will never pass, should never pass, but may well be a ploy to negotiate down to a number still too big. For those who say there should be no rule, I just say agree to a palatable one to avoid an unreasonable one.

The 150' from marinas and moorings also seems on the high side to me. But I do believe some limit is needed just for those with no common sense. I witnessed someone anchored less than 25' outside the entrance to a marina and right in the middle of the entrance. When the officer approached them at the request of the marina, they told him there wasn't any @$#!^% law against it.

In your second red highlight regarding stored, it's basically saying you can't leave a boat unattended if it fails to meet certain conditions. I agree with that approach, although I don't agree with the defining of those conditions plus I think there would need to be safeguards to protect the owner. However, I think if it's in danger of sinking or loose it needs to be taken to a designated facility and hauled out, much like an auto junk yard. Similarly, it could be recovered. I think similarly some similar rules for boats stored at marinas. Get them out before they sink kind of thing. If it's not an immediate danger situation put notice on the boat and give time. For instance, if it can't operate, it merits repair time. Closed to the elements I don't care about. Sanitation if no one is on it, you don't know anyway nor does it really matter. A lot of work left to do.

Honestly, I'd like the "anchoring rules" to be a totally separate set of rules from the "Derelict boat rules."

And as to abandoned and derelict vessels, I encourage them to look at other states and countries. There are some good definitions out there. Some of those too are far beyond those proposed for Florida. Washington's definition of abandoned is:

A vessel is considered abandoned if the vessel’s owner is not known or cannot be located, or if the vessel’s owner is known and located but is unwilling to take control of the vessel, and the vessel has been left, moored, or anchored in the same area without the express consent, or contrary to the rules, of the owner, manager, or lessee of the aquatic lands below or on which the vessel is located for either a period of more than thirty consecutive days or for more than a total of ninety days in any three hundred sixty-five day period. “In the same area” means within a radius of five miles of any location where the vessel was previously moored or anchored on aquatic lands.

Their definition of derelict is:

A vessel is considered derelict if the vessel’s owner is known and can be located, and exerts control of a vessel that:
a) Has been moored, anchored, or otherwise left in the waters of the state or on public property contrary to chapter 79.02.300 RCW or rules adopted by an
authorized public entity;
b) Has been left on private property without authorization of the owner; or
c) Has been left for a period of seven consecutive days, and:
i. Is sunk or in danger of sinking;
ii. Is obstructing a waterway, or
iii. Is endangering life or property.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by AnchorageGuy

We've been cruising in Florida waters for over 23 years. The mooring fields DO NOT help the derelict boat problem in any way. In every case where a mooring field has been installed, the derelict boats just move to another anchorage. The only one affected are the true cruising community that would like to choose to either anchor or pay for dockage, etc along their favorite waterway stops. Using the derelict boat issue as an excuse to regulate anchoring is simply that, an excuse. There are more than sufficient laws on the state and federal books to handle this and eliminate the problem altogether. This is another case of the path of least resistance. It's takes work and effort to use the existing laws to solve the problem. I see more FWC officer driving up and down the highway in their SUV's than I every see on the water on any given day. Communities will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a mooring field and the administration of it, based on the pressures of a few, rather than using those same resources to resolve the problems they claim the mooring field will correct. Herein lies the problem and here is where we need to address our response to these ongoing proposals to regulate. Chuck

There are 2 issues, (1) is the derelicts, (2) are the NIMBYs that want no boats in their view.

1) The pilot program allows the municipalities to get ahead of the derelict issue within their jurisdiction. All the laws on the books dealing with derelicts are (a) vague on the definition and (b) action can only be taken after determination that a vessel is derelict. The typical ordinances in the pilot program have vessel requirements whereby the muni can kick a vessel out if it falls into disrepair, no insurance, etc. prior to being deemed derelict by the vague definition. So, yes, the pilot program helps the munis with the derelict issue.

2) The NIMBY's are the biggest problem, they don't want to see any boats within view. IMO, I don't want to peer in anyone's backyard anymore than I want them to have a clear view into my cockpit/salon. Hence, I naturally anchor as far away as I can from civilization. So, if there were a distance set, what is fair? Anything under 100' feet is, IMO, ridiculous and unsafe. The waterway behind my house is 150' wide, I have a very clear view into the neighbors backyard from my house which is probably 200' away. So when I hear fairness of 100', from a land owner POV, I say not enough. As a cruiser, I say to each their own, but I wouldn't anchor 100' from someone's backyard. At 300', as a cruiser, I start to get a little more comfortable, only if nothing further away was available. But again, IMO.

What the FWC needs to get across to the NIMBY's, "no anchoring" is not an option. Time limits? 30 days? Proof of pumpout?

[Phantoms]

300ft makes you more comfortable? Perhaps we should say no boat traffic within 300ft of your property line as they can still look in your backyard while riding or drifting by. Maybe your land neighbors should have to have their property 300ft away for the same reason.

300ft equals the length of a football field and is absolutely ridiculous.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by soverel

The mooring fields are not making money in this area and subsidized by town taxpayer funds. Among their budget items for the mooring field is about fifty grand a year to county sheriff to monitor the mf on weekends to make sure everyone is paying for the ball. Unreal.

Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

In some regards yes but this is certainly not the case in St. Augustine. The marina staff are well aware of who has paid and not paid.

Florida basically left the operation and standards way up in the air when they created the mooring field program. With the exception of a few guiding rules the operation of one mooring field is completely different than the operation of another mooring field. This is extremely inefficient and makes it difficult for visiting boaters to know what to expect.

I think a few cities basically stuck the balls out and said "they'll have to stay on them and we will make money.. who cares if there are any facilities, night guards, maintenance, or on-site management."

Other cities saw the mooring fields at gateways for visiting boaters. Like STA. Personally, I think the mooring fields need to be brought in under one management company contract using standard facilities, with a greater range of services and activities available. The states may need to enact eminent domain against existing facility owners and seize control of these properties in order for this to work.

All the marinas should have architectural cues that reflect the community they exist in... for example, making the titusville marina look like a space port (whatever), and the STA marina look like a castle or old victorian hotel. The marina should include a hyatt, marriott, with conference & meeting rooms, work stations with printers, etc above them and should include things like starbucks, a marina store for supplies like engine oil, use the same pump out and transport boats, the same mooring balls, the same uniforms, and you should get points just like a marriott.

In short, statewide they need to operate like a marriott, where there are different brands that cost different levels and where you expect the same exact service level no matter where you go.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Phantoms

300ft makes you more comfortable? Perhaps we should say no boat traffic within 300ft of your property line as they can still look in your backyard while riding or drifting by. Maybe your land neighbors should have to have their property 300ft away for the same reason.

300ft equals the length of a football field and is absolutely ridiculous.

I hear this consistently. It's makes me wonder how much experience people actually have anchoring alongside other boats and structures. If so, have you ever determined the distance between your boat and the neighboring boat?

[Phantoms]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I hear this consistently. It's makes me wonder how much experience people actually have anchoring alongside other boats and structures. If so, have you ever determined the distance between your boat and the neighboring boat?

I am only speaking as to the distance between a boat and a property line or dock. You and I know that if this is the limit, it will be measured from your boat to such, not from where your anchor is set (if your boat swings within 300ft then you'll get a citation).